C3/GPS/Satellite systems effectiveness in war with sophisticated enemy

[Waylander]

So that's your point?
As I said I doubt that anybody here is going to say that the modern NATO command structure isn't going to be affected by enemy (russian) actions.

The question is how much.
For sure, and again I doubt anybody would disagree, the russians have some capabilities which might pose problems and may very well have some additional things up their sleeves which may add further problems.

Nevertheless the question remains of how much any country on this earth is able to affect the NATO command structure so much that it actually hurts enough to fight NATO to a standstill. (Short of using Nukes that is...)

 

[PhysicsMan]

So that's your point?
As I said I doubt that anybody here is going to say that the modern NATO command structure isn't going to be affected by enemy (russian) actions.

The question is how much.
For sure, and again I doubt anybody would disagree, the russians have some capabilities which might pose problems and may very well have some additional things up their sleeves which may add further problems.

Nevertheless the question remains of how much any country on this earth is able to affect the NATO command structure so much that it actually hurts enough to fight NATO to a standstill. (Short of using Nukes that is...)

I think you're oversimplifying the scenario by implying that US assets (I have GPS in mind for instance) could only suffer "cosmetic" alterations in operation. Assets to counter satellite operations have been developing for a long time in Russia: hunter satellites, high power lasers, rockets (especially rockets - I would think Russian Space Forces wouldn't have much trouble with targeting and launching missiles fairly quickly - not an overly complicated task for a sophisticated space program).

 

[Todjaeger]

I think you're oversimplifying the scenario by implying that US assets (I have GPS in mind for instance) could only suffer "cosmetic" alterations in operation. Assets to counter satellite operations have been developing for a long time in Russia: hunter satellites, high power lasers, rockets (especially rockets - I would think Russian Space Forces wouldn't have much trouble with targeting and launching missiles fairly quickly - not an overly complicated task for a sophisticated space program).

Using the GPS satellite constellation as an example, there are 27 satellites in the constellation, of which I believe 24 are 'online' with the other three being spares available to take over should one or more of the online satellites fail. The GPS satellites also orbit the Earth at a distance of 12,000 miles fast enough to complete a rotation in 12 hours. The orbital tracks are also positioned so that at any given point in time a GPS receiver on Earth can get telemetry from 4 different positioning satellites.

In order to have any impact on the GPS system, at least 4 different satellites need to be effected. Unless the hypothetical conflict was truly worldwide, the GPS satellite constellation might be able to be re-arranged to just provide coverage of conflict areas until replacement satellites could be launched. This would then mean that a greater number of GPS satellites would need to be effected to begin degrading their performance over the conflict area.

Given the numbers and the velocities and distances involved, I do not believe any nation is capable of effecting sufficient GPS satellites to impact the system. Part of that belief is that it is harder to get an asset into space and then bring it close enough to an already maneuvering satellite so that it can have an effect upon the satellite. The other reason for that belief is that GPS started as a military/defence effort to improve navigation.

One concern during development and improvement (work is currently underway for GPS-IIF satellites and GPS-III) is that attacks could be launched on the satellites in an effort to bring down the system. With that in mind, I would expect that efforts would have been made to 'harden' the GPS satellites to make them further resistant to EM effects, beyond what is required normally in space. Another way to counter efforts to cripple the system would be to just increase the number of GPS satellites in order. While not necessarily an inexpensive solution, if is believed that an opponent can successfully persecute an attack upon GPS satellites why not just increase the numbers needed to be targeted before system failure occurs?

By my admittedly very rough guestimates, if the desired impact was a loss of GPS coverage to 25% of the world, then 10 GPS satellites would need to be effected. If there were 48 GPS satellites orbiting instead of 27, then something like 30 satellites would need to be effected...

This whole scenario also ignores the fact that alternate methods of guidance and navigation are available as adjuncts to, or in place of GPS navigation. This means that even with the loss of GPS, it only leads to a degradation in accuracy of navigation, not a loss in ability to navigate.

As Waylander put, a US/NATO non-nuclear conflict with an advanced nation would likely mean that US & NATO forces would encounter equipment and tactics which would degrade their operational effectiveness more so than if the conflict was not with a peer or near-peer nation. This would in turn means that the US/NATO forces would likely suffer higher losses, and/or need to expend more equipment/munitions/time in order to achieve victory.

So what?

By using nations X and Y I was attempting to keep this from being a direct comparison between various nations and therefore not just another Russia vs. US/NATO. If that is what people want, consider the following.

For approximately forty years, the US and NATO had made plans and developed equipment to keep Soviet & Warsaw Pact forces from crossing the Fulda Gap. At the time this was going on, the Soviet Union was a peer nation to the US in terms of influence, tech development, defence forces, etc. In the last two decades, the Soviet Union has broken up into a number of separate states, not all of which are friendly with each other. The Warsaw Pact, a defence agreement meant to oppose NATO has also ended, and a number of former member-nations are now friendly with, or even members of NATO. Following the breakup and the subsequent economic upheaval in the former Soviet states, there was a marked decrease in terms of development and production of defence equipment. There were also cuts in the level of forces maintained, with some capabilities being severely curtailed or even given up entirely.

In short, the Russia of today lacks much of the capability that the Soviet Union of 25 years had. When compared with peer nations which have been able to maintain various capabilities and improve upon them and develop new capabilities, the difference is even more noticeable.

-Cheers

 

[Waylander]

As Tod already said.
I fully aware that such a conflict is going to result in much more losses than for example the Iraq adventure.
I also think that current russian systems and capabilities are going to degrade the NATO command and control capabilities and even more so when they have something unknown up their sleeves.
But is it going to be enough to render NATO ineffectively? To fight them to a standstill?
And how much of russia's command & control capabilities is going to suffer during such a conflict?

That's the question.
And to say it with Tod's words.
More problems, more casualties? So what?
That's all out war. One shouldn't epect anything less.

But to think that the Russia of today (or any other nation) is going to be able to compete with NATO in conventional military terms is wrong.
No one knows what the future brings but right now that's reality.

But that's not a problem for Russia at all. It still has it's big firecrackers so is save from any foreign agression and it's armed forces are still good enough to teach it's non NATO neighbours a lesson or two (ok, apart from China).

 

[PhysicsMan]

As Tod already said.
I fully aware that such a conflict is going to result in much more losses than for example the Iraq adventure.
I also think that current russian systems and capabilities are going to degrade the NATO command and control capabilities and even more so when they have something unknown up their sleeves.
But is it going to be enough to render NATO ineffectively? To fight them to a standstill?
And how much of russia's command & control capabilities is going to suffer during such a conflict?

That's the question.
And to say it with Tod's words.
More problems, more casualties? So what?
That's all out war. One shouldn't epect anything less.

But to think that the Russia of today (or any other nation) is going to be able to compete with NATO in conventional military terms is wrong.
No one knows what the future brings but right now that's reality.

But that's not a problem for Russia at all. It still has it's big firecrackers so is save from any foreign agression and it's armed forces are still good enough to teach it's non NATO neighbours a lesson or two (ok, apart from China).

You guys seem to have drifted off the topic a bit in your trying to prove that NATO would win a conflict with Russia - that's not the topic here and nobody is disputing that (or rather, nobody should be disputing that). The topic was about how efficiently the command&control, comm and GPS systems would be able to operate during such a conflict. The outcome of such a conflict would probably be similar even if the whole GPS system was taken down, so the question is only about what the possible damage could be to systems like that, nothing more.

Now, on the topic of maintaining more GPS units up there for a case of a major conflict... Currently most of the operational units have a lifetime of 10 years (some less). If they increased the number from 27 to something like 40 that would drive up costs tremendously over time. There were reports that they had trouble keeping the 27 up (probably due to budget constraints), and it seems unlikely they will go for such huge cost increases in the future.

About the number of units to take out to disrupt operation - it's probably more than 4 actually, even without any repositioning of the rest - which by itself is likely impossible to do (at the most, they can probably adjust their orbit slightly to compensate, possibly not even that). Why more than four? Because I know that GLONASS currently has 18-20 operational units and they provide over 90% global coverage at all times. Taking out 4 units will have little effect as the new ones will assume the positions over the region very quickly. So probably it has to be much more.

And about the tech to take them out... The satellites aren't "maneuvering", their orbits are circular and well known, as I said before, sending a kill vehicle to intercept is not an overly difficult task, there are maneuvers performed in space that are more complex than that. I think it's more of a question what such a kill vehicle might be. I know that during the "Seven hour nuclear war" exercise (for those who don't know - a huge Soviet war drill in early 80s, meant to simulate an all-out nuclear war with US that lasted 7 hours and involved all sorts of things - the largest and costliest war exercises ever conducted) one of the space launches was of a satellite killer, but I do not know what kind of a killer-satellite it was (anyone?). I do know that there were several different plans for such a vehicle - a laser gun, an explosive device for a direct kill, a space "shrapnel" to be sent into the appropriate orbit and destroy the target by multiple impacts, they even had a a gun mounted on a satellite (only on Earth I assume). Are all those only paper capabilities? Maybe, maybe not all.

 

[Bonza]

Assuming such a conflict as is being discussed was not a surprise attack on the United States, do you think it's fair to say the US have measures in place to disrupt/destroy an enemy nation's ability to conduct anti-satellite operations as a prelude to all-out war?

I imagine the launch facilities for such equipment as is necessary to erode a satellite net would be immobile, and easily identified.

 

[PhysicsMan]

Assuming such a conflict as is being discussed was not a surprise attack on the United States, do you think it's fair to say the US have measures in place to disrupt/destroy an enemy nation's ability to conduct anti-satellite operations as a prelude to all-out war?

I imagine the launch facilities for such equipment as is necessary to erode a satellite net would be immobile, and easily identified.

Apparently, during the seven hour nuclear war they conducted space launches not from Baikonur or Plesetsk, in preparation for a scenario where those are destroyed.

 

[Todjaeger]

You guys seem to have drifted off the topic a bit in your trying to prove that NATO would win a conflict with Russia - that's not the topic here and nobody is disputing that (or rather, nobody should be disputing that). The topic was about how efficiently the command&control, comm and GPS systems would be able to operate during such a conflict. The outcome of such a conflict would probably be similar even if the whole GPS system was taken down, so the question is only about what the possible damage could be to systems like that, nothing more.

It is not that we drifted OT, the topic started on being the US/NATO vs. Russia. If you doubt that, re-read the first post in the thread. Except for Iran, the areas of operation listed for the C3/C4 systems were all areas that the US and/or NATO conducted combat ops in. In addition, the two platforms listed as being 'extremely dangerous' after the failure of global communications/command systems are Russian platforms. Incidentally, by speaking of global communications/command systems, that pretty much means the US/NATO as no other nation or alliance has a system of truly global reach.

The other issue is that if one is to discuss how well a C4ISR system will function while an opponent is attempting to suppress or disable it, there needs to be discussion of what efforts are being made to suppress it. So far, that really has not been happening. Until it does, the discussion amounts to little more than statements that the C4ISR systems have been impacted with the question of how left unanswered so no determination can accurately be made of whether a given method would succeed, or what countermeasures and alternate or redundant systems the C4ISR systems could utilize.

Such a situation does not make for a good debate or discussion.

 

[PREDATOR]

someone mentioned here about russian laser/missile and EC weapons on satellites, and that is true, and of cuz that wont be difficult for them to seriously degrade US/NATO com/sat systems. As i said before, they dont need to launch bunch of missiles in the sky from earth to do this. thats what the point is.

 

[Bonza]

someone mentioned here about russian laser/missile and EC weapons on satellites, and that is true, and of cuz that wont be difficult for them to seriously degrade US/NATO com/sat systems. As i said before, they dont need to launch bunch of missiles in the sky from earth to do this. thats what the point is.

Do you have a source confirming Russia has armed satellites in orbit?

 

[PREDATOR]

Do you have a source confirming Russia has armed satellites in orbit?

i know personals who worked at such projects during soviet time. That is why i assume, that they still probably have it, they did not have any reason to remove them or stop working on such things.

so...if it makes u feel more safe to believe that it is wrong, then its up to u, im not going to convince anyone

 

[Bonza]

i know personals who worked at such projects during soviet time. That is why i assume, that they still probably have it, they did not have any reason to remove them or stop working on such things.

so...if it makes u feel more safe to believe that it is wrong, then its up to u, im not going to convince anyone

Let's break this down one step at a time.

1. You know people who worked on these projects - can this be verified by anyone?

2. You assume these projects are still active - well, assumption isn't good enough if you're going to state something as fact.

3. You imply that I'm in denial because I want to "feel more safe" - all I was doing was applying common sense to your arguments, and asking for some tangible proof beyond your word. Something you're either unwilling or unable to provide.

 

[PREDATOR]

well, sorry i dont know how to verify this information for u. again...i just said what i assume and know for sure. you are free to believe or not to believe.

 

[Todjaeger]

Regarding the ability to launch attacks upon satellites, a few things which need to be mentioned

Speaking broadly, satellites are in one of four orbits, they are either LEO, MEO, GEO or HE, . These different orbits are all at different, with LEO being closest with a max altitude of ~1,000 miles and the rest increasing from there in order of altitude, with HEO starting at altitudes of ~20,000+ miles.

Several different countries have developed, and some have even tested ASAT capabilities vs. LEO satellites. No country has tested or demonstrated an ASAT capability vs. GEO or higher , though the US has apparently developed an ASAT system which is supposed to be GEO capabile. It has not been tested due to treaty restrictions. No credible information has come up that Russia or the Soviet Union has ever had a GEO ASAT capability.

Given the greatly increased altitudes, and just the sheer volume of space it is significantly more difficult to create a system which is ability to reach the higher altitude to attack satellites. This is part of the reason why the US and NATO nations make a point of having their satellite constellations in GEO orbits whenever possible.

As for the utility of lasers vs. satellites... The Soviets had apparently used some ground-based lasers to temporarily blind IR cameras in spy satellites in LEO. AFAIK using a laser to attack a satellite in GEO orbit is not possible unless the satellite is already in space and comparatively nearby. A laser is essentially a focused beam of EM radiation, generally in the light spectrum but can also be of microwave frequencies or even x-ray frequency. One property of a laser though, is that while the beam is highly focused at a certain point relative to the focal length of the emitter lense, as the beam moves away from the focal point, the beam will diverge.

When dealing with the ranges encountered in space where a target satellite might be thousands of miles away, the beam divergence will essentially be sufficient so that a laser would require a very (impractically) large lense to achieve the needed range with the amount of available power.

As for assuming that because the Soviet Union had been working on ASAT projects, the projects have continued and new developments have occurred... That IMO would be a very risky assumption. Look at Russian defence spending and development over the last 20 years. For many years following the breakup of the Soviet Union, the military and defence industries were starved of funding, in many cases just enough orders for things were placed to keep some facilities open. Many capabilities that the Soviet Union had maintained were allowed (or forced) to be reduced, or in some cases given up altogether due to cutbacks. Assuming that Russia has been able to maintain development of ASAT capabilities to match the explosion in the use of satellites by other countries for both civilian and military purposes does not seem logical when compared to other areas of Russian military and tech development.

For those interested in more discussion of space-based conflict, take a look at this other thread on DT. It contains some mentions of various ASAT capabilities which is relevant as a significant portion of C4 & C5ISR involves satellites.

-Cheers

 

[Duffy]

well, sorry i dont know how to verify this information for u. again...i just said what i assume and know for sure. you are free to believe or not to believe.

Russia's main and only dedicated ASAT system was the Co-Orbital ASAT system.The system's initial testing phase (1963-1972) consisted of approximately 20 launches (including launches of both target satellites and interceptors), seven interceptions, and five detonations.The initial tests confirmed the system could work from orbital altitudes of 230 to 1,000 kilometers and the system was declared operational.
The Soviets resumed testing of the Co-Orbital system in 1976 The Soviets reportedly showed some success at extending the range of the Co-Orbital system to as low as 160 km and as high as 1,600 km, The final two launches before it's cancellation was in June 1982.Cosmos 1375 (Target) was launched from Plesetsk on June 6th . Then Cosmos 1379 (Killer) was launched from the Baikonur launch complex on June 18th Commencing the end of the 7 hour nuclear war exercises.The program was scrapped the following year.
There was a second program in 1987 the Skif DM "Battle Station" in space. The prototype was lost on May 15 1987. Due to a software problem with the Energia launch rocket. That program scrapped shortly after.
The Soviet laser ASAT project located at the Terra-3 complex could temporarily blind the optics of spy satellite's when directly over head. This was also canceled in the mid 80s. The US inspected the system in the mid 90s and decided it was not capable of damaging satellite's. .Then in 2009 the Russian Air Force resumed a program from the 80s not unlike the The US ASM-135 ASAT system. out of all of these systems the highest kill altitude was 1,600 km . The orbit was directly over the launch site.
There were a couple other short lived projects, the Almaz stations a manned orbiter in 1978,/ Modified ICBM with a nuclear war head in the 80s all were canceled. To date there are no satellite killers. Maybe on paper but nothing more.

Also satellites can be moved . Once in orbit a GPS satellite can be moved to any position within it's orbital plane. GPS satellites are move around regularly. The US Coast Guard posts reports when this is done. Each Carry's 1,000 pounds of hydrazine fuel for this purpose.

 

[PREDATOR]

Look at Russian defence spending and development over the last 20 years. For many years following the breakup of the Soviet Union, the military and defence industries were starved of funding, in many cases just enough orders for things were placed to keep some facilities open.

one thing to mention about funding,...what Russian engineer does for X amount of money, US engineer does for 5X amount of money. And that would be wrong to think of all that in terms of spending money. US stuff was always very expensive (and not always as good, and even in some cases not even close to soviet/russian).

About these projects...soviets had a lot of perspective projects, some of them were suspended. But later they began to spend money, and for them (not even for a country like India or China)....taking in account their technological base...it was not so hard to make those systems operational again, or even more advanced.

but i see you all are trying to think in another way and ignore reality. you look at the mass media information where they show old crappy russian military technics without any service and in bad condition...and u make same assumption about their strategic/space defense systems. well....ur opinion...

 

[Duffy]

but i see you all are trying to think in another way and ignore reality. you look at the mass media information where they show old crappy russian military technics without any service and in bad condition...and u make same assumption about their strategic/space defense systems. well....ur opinion...

Reality is there is no proof that satellite killers exist. There is no proof that the Russian government has spent money on this type of project since the late 80s. There is no proof that any nation has the ability to jam communication satellite's to the point were it will make them useless.
That is reality. If you base X vs Y on speculation there is no point in the conversation because it will always get out of hand. The link will be locked and its all a waist of time.

 

[PREDATOR]

as i said u may think of it as u wish... but the thing is in russia they dont put all the penny they spent on such a programs for mass media. and remember u wont be able always to judge by the information u can obtain from such a sources.

 

[PhysicsMan]

Also satellites can be moved . Once in orbit a GPS satellite can be moved to any position within it's orbital plane. GPS satellites are move around regularly. The US Coast Guard posts reports when this is done. Each Carry's 1,000 pounds of hydrazine fuel for this purpose.

These sound like minor orbital adjustments - if it is moved within its orbital plain it basically means that if it loses a bit of altitude they boost it back up to its proper orbit (they need to maintain the distance from Earth). That's probably where its operational lifetime number comes from - fuel runs out, the unit is done...

 

[PhysicsMan]

Several different countries have developed, and some have even tested ASAT capabilities vs. LEO satellites. No country has tested or demonstrated an ASAT capability vs. GEO or higher , though the US has apparently developed an ASAT system which is supposed to be GEO capabile. It has not been tested due to treaty restrictions. No credible information has come up that Russia or the Soviet Union has ever had a GEO ASAT capability.

Given the greatly increased altitudes, and just the sheer volume of space it is significantly more difficult to create a system which is ability to reach the higher altitude to attack satellites. This is part of the reason why the US and NATO nations make a point of having their satellite constellations in GEO orbits whenever possible.

GPS orbits are not GEO, they're MEO. I agree with you that destroying targets at distances beyond LEO is a difficult task for a missile (the projects Duffy mentioned were missile interceptions it seems). There are other methods being considered, however, that do not depend on the height of the orbit significantly. These would involve sending a hunter-satellite into the same orbit as the target - not much more difficult than setting up a GPS (or GLONASS) satellite itself. Soviets did work on such a project, as I mentioned before. The kill method that sounds the most efficient to me is throwing lots of junk into the orbit from the killer satellite which would destroy the target upon impact. It would be interesting to know the details of how that project went.

Assuming that Russia has been able to maintain development of ASAT capabilities to match the explosion in the use of satellites by other countries for both civilian and military purposes does not seem logical when compared to other areas of Russian military and tech development.

Last year Russia launched more satellites in space than the rest of the world combined.